So what is your plan if the shit hits the fan

Sir this is a Taco Bell.

Then @Fisherman's Worf is screwed.

Because the states are the people and that’s federalism.

Fucked up, if true.

The states are the people but the nation isn't?

Not as originally designed. The House represents the nation as a whole, state and local government represent the individual people of that state or local government.

What would be the positive outcomes of such a move?

Rather than giving states more influence at a federal level it seems to me like it would instead just make state-level politics have more campaigning based on national issues.

Because the effects of those laws on people's lives are far less important than the fact that the idea of federalism gives me a woody.

It would restore a major “check and balance” to the Congress, returning the Senate to looking after the interests of the states (and therefore restraining the federal government to a degree) while leaving the House to look after the interests of the people.

What do you imagine being the difference between the states and the people of the states? (Aside from the fact that, through gerrymandering, Republicans are able to control the legislatures of several states where the majority of the people keep voting against them.)

wow, so not a single thought in your head.

Cash is fine, but how are you going to get it when the US government looks at the banks and says tell them to fuck off, and cuts off the locals from the network of banks and credit? It is great to think you won't have to start from complete scratch, but yes you are. How are you going to get any supplies when you are under a complete blockade from the US. Thje US banks are just going to seize all the state's cash, and then what? McDonalds might make some hamburgers for you before they rot in the freezer because your power connections and plants are shut off and sabotaged. How is McDonalds even going to get more burger patties when the US has the planes, trains, and automobiles blocked, and any shipping ports blockaded.

The whole idea relies on the US letting those people go and doing nothing. That is not happening. The corporations and banks will side with the US because the economy of red states is dirt poor. The internet will be cut off like a fucking switch. Where are you going to get your cheap chinese goods from when you are landlocked in the US?

five year olds have more thought in their fantasies than the red hats and the blue chicken littles.

You cannot argue facts with five year old trumpsters and their idiocy.

All @Lanzman has is a fucking toddler's fantasy of government with no thought put into it. Wouldn't life be great if there were unicorns and fairies? Sure maybe, but they are not comijg out of fantasyland just like Lanz's fantasies. Someone should tell Lanz we had powerful state rights and a shitty powerless fed and that worked like a lead filled balloon attached to a submarine with screen doors. It would be great to just poof the right wing idiots into their fantasy and see them crying and begging to come back within five minutes, but that is just a fantasy too because we do not have the room, and criminal stupidity is not a crime.

But that already happens when a state's citizens elect their Senators? The check and balance is still there by virtue of both our bicameral federal legislature and three branches of government. And Senators already look after the interests of their particular state, whereas Representatives look after their particular districts.

If members of a state legislature elected a Senator, the Senator wouldn't look out for the interests of the state--they'd look out for the interests of those legislators. Giving the people the power to elect Senators seems much more preferable, given the variability of gerrymandering and corruption in state/local politics, and the undue influence state legislators would have on Senators. (And in fact, corruption by essentially buying yourself a position as a Senator was a motivation in passing the 17th Amendment).

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the current setup is perfect because we need term limits and we need to remove money from political campaigning. But your proposal to repeal the 17th Amendment wouldn't actually do what you claim it would do. It may have worked in a pre-industrial, fledgling democratic republic, but in the modern world it would do the opposite of what you claim.

Why would it though?

What would be more likely to happen is that you would see state elections being run based on who they will appoint to the Senate. So popular election of senators will still effectively happen, with the loss of a focus on state level issues.

I've already left the failing US to embrace the rewards of rising communist utopia. Hell, we've even had more personal freedoms the past twelve months than ya'll. I'm sure I'll be fine.

This categorization is confused and all the subsequent bickering in this thread, moot. It's not a transfer of power back to the states from somewhere else. It's a transfer of power from state voters to state legislatures. You will note that @Demiurge said "state legislatures" specifically in his OP.

You're going to have to show your math.... Make me understand how state appointed Senators are more representative of the people's will than directly elected Senators. How is the former a republic and the latter federalist? The only thing I can think of is that returning to state appointed Senators will render the Senate to statewide gerrymandering and rigged state voter suppression in the same manner as the House. The older I get, I'm of the opinion that the founding fathers made several flaws in the US Constitution and the consolidation of power among the rich and powerful is chief among them. Even they understood that what they were doing wasn't quite the best way to do it and that's why they made it amendable.

You don't see a flaw with that?

I mean, I sort of see the logic in senators acting in the state's interested and representatives acting in the interest of the people, because sometimes those two disagree and there needs to be tension at all times checks and balances, but when I think about it as "the elite" vs "the commonfolk" it falls apart in the 21st century.

Well ..., why not just say “my views changed” and might even help if you explain why your views changed. If they didn’t, then an attempt to explain the discrepancy would be what a normal person in a normal conversation might do.

No I don’t.

Firstly that no political entity serves to represent individual people, the question is one of ever diminishing scale moving down from the national level?

Secondly the interests of "the nation" should not be at odds with those of "the people"?

Thirdly what is a nation if it isn't it's people?

What happens when an individual's rights run contrary to collective expedience?

One or the other wins out.

Usually the outcome depends on the powers available to the individual.

I'm not sure how that helps here?

It doesn't. I can either be helpful or silent. but seldom both.

Fair enough.

What happens when you suck my balls

I'm gonna mix it up and start baking snickerdoodles.

This is the correct answer. Thread closed, comments to MA.

In what kind of scenario would this be an issue?

If I am understanding the question correctly, because it always comes down to guns on this board, what you’re really asking is what happens whenever an individual wants to own a gun but runs contrary to a “safe society“ (collective expedience?)?

There are all kinds of issues happening with the human race right now, not the least of which is that everyone is angry. Why is everyone angry? Because no matter how much one works, no matter how hard one tries, no matter how much luck or baggage they have in their favor, no one can get ahead these days. Purchasing power is at an all time low and continues to deteriorate, worker wages stagnate while the cost of living increases.

The middle class is getting poorer and poorer.

And crime is highest in the poorest neighborhoods.

Why is that? Because poor people are not only willing but oftentimes need to commit crimes just to stay afloat.

And that is where we are.

And, you want to add guns to that?

If you want a free society, then employers must be made to pay a living wage.

So, your question is like asking “what happens when I want to eat fast food, but I really need to lose weight” or “what happens when I want to play with gasoline, but the house is on fire”

Very insightful comment.